Is this Art or Photography?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
jackdan
Contributing MemberPosts: 892
Like?
Re: Photography is Art, the distinction is irrelevant (n/t)
In reply to Glen Barrington, 6 months ago

Glen Barrington wrote:

jackdan wrote:

I assume you are being facetious, because that would be like saying anything that can be photographed is already art and then we would just be taking pictures of art.

Not at all am I being facetious. You have stated my point with great clarity.

The art is in the SEEING, not in the making. Did Diane Arbus, Harry Callahan, or Henri Cartier Bresson do anything different than what you and I could do? Not really. What they did was see the art in the world around them, and what we the viewers do when we look at their work is see the art that they saw. Art needs both sides of that coin to be art.

The artist sees something in the world and either takes a photo of it or combines it with something else and tosses it out there for us to experience, and then says, "Look at this! Isn't it Cool?" I don't think art has a definition, it is what we say it is. If enough of us say "Art" instead of "Not Art" then the work gets a cultural seal of approval, and then we all say "Art" whether we get it or not.

When Lanidrac (I assume he was the artist) posted that first example, those of us who saw the art of the thing completed the circuit and the work became art, and the artist was successful. Those of us who didn't see the art were unable to complete the circuit, and the artist failed.

Trying to make a distinction between Photography and Art is silly, and surely Lanidrac knows this. Photography is how some of us present/make art, it is not the art itself. It makes as much sense as if Lanidrac had asked if the example was a steamship or the theory of relativity.

I see I misunderstood your no text post. As it turns out some text would have been helpful. Photography art is like that tree falling in the forest where no one was present to hear the sound.  If no one, including the photographer, sees art in a photograph or thinks of the photograph as art then is it art? An example might be a photo of a house taken to put into a real estate listing or a photo taken to document an automobile accident.

But on the other hand a photo could be worthy of display in a gallery and folks love and praise it, but it never occurred to anyone to think of it as art, to them it was just an exceptionally good picture. Whether or not the photo was art or not doesn't matter because like you say the distinction is irrelevant.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
BothNew
CGINew
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow